An NYPD officer accused of roughing up and illegally arresting a New York Times photographer has been indicted on multiple charges stemming from an incident last August. Robert Stolarik, an NPPA member, was violently accosted and taken into custody while photographing Officer Michael Ackermann who was trying to arrest a teenage girl in the Bronx.

Officer Ackermann claimed Stolarik hindered police work by repeatedly aiming the flash of his camera at the officer’s face. That story crumbled under investigation by the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB). The Bronx district attorney also learned that Stolarik did not have a flash on his camera at the time of the incident, and concluded the officer’s story was a lie. Ackermann now faces three felonies and five misdemeanors, and could see up to seven years in prison if convicted of the most serious charge.

Working with New York Times’ Vice President and Assistant General Counsel George Freeman after the arrest, NPPA General Counsel Mickey Osterreicher sent a letter to NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne objecting to Stolarik’s unwarranted arrest and rough treatment. Freeman and Osterreicher also requested that the photographer’s equipment and press credentials, both seized at the time of the incident, be immediately returned. In addition the NPPA publicly criticized the NYPD for their actions.

Stolarik’s ordeal was especially troubling because he was arrested in direct violation of NYPD’s own Patrol Guide directives as noted in a follow-up letter from Osterreicher to Browne. Osterreicher also sent a letter to the editor, which was published in the NY Times. In it Osterreicher urged “the New York Police Department to work with us to improve training and supervision for its members.”

Robert Stolarik displays his NYPD press credentials in Tampa. FL, received 2 days before the RNC (photo by Mickey Osterreicher)

The NYPD returned Stolarik’s equipment in the days following the NPPA’s first letter. Osterreicher’s continued negotiations with the department resulted in the release of the photographer’s press credentials two weeks later. Ongoing efforts by George Freeman resulted in prosecutor’s ultimately dropped all charges against Stolarik.

The internal investigation that resulted in Officer Ackermann’s indictment is an encouraging sign in what was otherwise a troubling year for the NYPD’s relationship with photographers. Soon after Stolarik’s arrest, police conducted a campaign of intimidation and interference against photographers covering the anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street protest. Stolarik himself had been forcibly prevented from covering the actual rally the previous year. Several journalists were detained or arrested at the Occupy anniversary. The NPPA also responded to these incidents.

Incidents such as this are becoming alltoocommon throughout the country. Many officers apparently do not know or disregard photographers’ First Amendment rights. Despite assertions two years ago that the NYPD was providing improved training to its officers the situation in New York City has not improved. “We have been unsuccessful in arranging a meeting with the new NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Legal Matters (DCLM) or the Deputy Commissioner for Public Information (DCPI) to discuss these issues,” said Osterreicher. “Commissioner Kelly and his staff met with members of the media after the arrests of 26 journalists in Zuccotti Park in November of 2011, after which he issued a Finest message directing members of the NYPD to cooperate with the press. At the time I said that it was a good start but since then it appears to be just another piece of paper as far too many officers and supervisory staff ignore its directives,” Osterreicher added.

On behalf of the NPPA, Osterreicher has continued to advise and train police agencies around the country in an effort to improve police-press relations. The First Amendment is not absolute but subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. While police may have the discretion to limit access when public safety or other legitimate law enforcement activities so dictate, they may not order someone to stop taking photographs or recording video in a public place, especially if other members of the public are allowed to remain and observe those activities.

As Osterreicher says in his police training: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way!” It is indeed unfortunate that rather than respecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that they are sworn to uphold some officers believe that they are a law unto themselves. For Officer Ackermann it may have been a very costly mistake to view a photographer with a camera with suspicion and contempt. Everyone has a job to do: for a police officer it is to provide public safety and enforce the law; for a visual journalist it is to gather and disseminate news. It would best serve both purposes if this case helps to encourage cooperation between the two professions rather that continued conflict. As often is the case it’s the enlightening truths that prove most elusive.

The New York Police Department (NYPD) on Friday returned the camera equipment of a New York Times photographer who had his equipment seized following his arrest on August 4th.

Robert Stolarik, who was arrested on charges of obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest while photographing police activity on assignment, said, “My cameras were returned to me on Friday at 3:30. Getting my gear back is the first step in returning to some normalcy. The next things for me will be getting the charges dropped and having my credentials returned to me.”

The return of the seized equipment came days after the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) sent a letter to Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne of the NYPD that objected to the rough treatment and arrest of Stolarik and requested that his equipment be returned to him.

“Mr. Stolarik’s equipment and credentials must be returned immediately,” said Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for NPPA, in his letter to the NYPD. “We believe that the seizure and alleged destruction of his equipment not only violates his First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights but may be considered a form of prior restraint and a violation of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, specifically enacted to protect against the search and seizure of a journalist’s work product.”

Osterreicher also sent a letter to the editor which was published by the NY Times on that same Friday morning, in which among other things, the NPPA attorney urged “the New York Police Department to work with us to improve training and supervision for its members starting from the top down .”

Upon learning of the equipment’s return Osterreicher said, “While I am pleased that Robert has his cameras back, this incident, like so many others around the country should never have happened in the first place.” “Had officers just let him do his job this would be a non-story,” he added.

Today Stolarik met with officers from the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau, who were following up on his complaint. That is also the reason that word of the equipment return was not announced until now. George Freeman, a lawyer for The Times, said “we hope the IAB will objectively investigate this case, because we are fully confident that if they look at the facts, they will find that the officers who blocked, intimidated and assaulted Mr. Stolarik acted inappropriately and violated NYPD guidelines.” He also added, “we hope that those officers ultimately will be disciplined not only to punish them for their wrongdoing, but also to send a well-needed message to the rest of the force that interfering and beating on the press while they are doing their jobs simply won’t be tolerated.”

I read with disappointing disbelief your recent statement in the Queens Chronicle “that only one journalist was arrested during the operation, despite stories to the contrary,” which you called “a total myth.” I also found it incredulous that given our media coalition letter of November 21, 2011, which addressed the arrests of journalists in and around Zuccotti Park; and during our meeting with you and Commissioner Kelly on November 23, 2011, no one ever raised the issue that “Occupy Wall Street protesters were forging press credentials in an effort to get through the police lines.” To hear you now deny your department’s culpability by claiming that “actual reporters” were not arrested is an absolute revision of history and is more appropriate as part of “1984 Newspeak” than coming from the Deputy Commissioner for Public Information for the NYPD.

I will not get into the actual numbers of “journalists” arrested but suffice to say that many of those arrested have read your comments and find nothing “mythical” about what happened to them. I can also state, after having represented two NPPA members who were arrested and charged, that the court took judicial notice of the letters submitted on their behalf from Agence France Press and TV New Zealand when dismissing their disorderly conduct charges in the interest of justice. Even with updates to the Politicker story now acknowledging “two journalists” being arrested and assertions from Stu Loesser that “there’s no discrepancy” between his November statement that “five credentialed reporters” had been arrested, I would direct your attention to the facts found in the post – setting the record straight.

The court went on to say “changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.” I cite this case not for the proposition that NYPD cease issuing credentials (although I do have a problem with your onerous credentialing requirements) but for you to consider that your revision of what actually transpired sounds more like the archaic “outside agitators” claim than it does of someone with an understanding of evolving standards of media technology and social policies.

The point is there were far more than one or two journalists who were arrested, detained or interfered with while trying to cover a matter of public concern. During our meeting in November you in no way suggested otherwise. Journalists should not be arrested for viewing or covering protests in public places as long as they do not interfere with police actions, whether or not they have credentials. Credentials, as your guidelines state, give those journalists additional access in certain circumstances but in no way should that warrant or justify the arrest of non-credentialed observers in a public forum.

While we greatly appreciate the Commissioner issuing his Finest message as a result of our November meeting it appears, given your comments, that there is much more that needs to be done. I take this opportunity to once again offer our expertise in helping to implement improved guidelines and training of officers regarding First and Fourth Amendments rights. I have recently done such training with the Washington DC Metro Police as well as the Chicago, Tampa and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Departments in preparation for the NATO Summit and the upcoming national political conventions in those cities. I personally observed the protests in Chicago and found that the police exercised incredible restraint in handling the protesters and those covering the protests and did not differentiate between credentialed and non-credentialed press in allowing access. As a result only one Getty photographer was arrested during three full days of (non-permitted) protests through the streets of downtown Chicago. Working with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press we were able to have the charges against him immediately reduced and expedite his release on bond.

If you and the Commissioner truly wish the new police academy to be the “West Point of law enforcement” I would strongly urge you to include the media in your training program rather than remain in a state of denial.

I look forward to continuing to strive together in an effort to improve police-press relations, the first step in which is keeping the facts straight. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) from Mickey H. Osterreicher, Esq. may constitute an attorney-client communication and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination and/or disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information and/or this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please do not read, copy or forward this message. Please permanently delete all copies and any attachments and notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you for your cooperation.